FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

emma17

Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

jknezek

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?

emma17

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?

Sorry, I should have left it at "D3" opponent, as that is really my point.
There are arguments on both sides of the scheduling tough opponents idea.  Specific to this issue I think is the question:  What is the goal of the D3 playoffs?  If the goal is to crown a team as the best in D3, then shouldn't the tournament invite those teams most likely to compete for that title?
TLU is to be commended for scheduling UMHB, but that game was their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing in the tournament.  Losing by such a wide margin clearly indicates they are not ready yet.     

jknezek

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?

Sorry, I should have left it at "D3" opponent, as that is really my point.
There are arguments on both sides of the scheduling tough opponents idea.  Specific to this issue I think is the question:  What is the goal of the D3 playoffs?  If the goal is to crown a team as the best in D3, then shouldn't the tournament invite those teams most likely to compete for that title?
TLU is to be commended for scheduling UMHB, but that game was their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing in the tournament.  Losing by such a wide margin clearly indicates they are not ready yet.     

There are 4 teams most likely to win the national title. There might be 3 or 4 more teams that if things break exactly right, might get a shot at the title. None of those 8 teams are missing from the tournament. Are there teams missing that could win a few games? Sure. But that's how it's always been. All the teams that got left out have already been proven inferior to someone.

Didn't UWO already miss their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing? NCC and SJF as well. Who are you upset about?

emma17

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?

Sorry, I should have left it at "D3" opponent, as that is really my point.
There are arguments on both sides of the scheduling tough opponents idea.  Specific to this issue I think is the question:  What is the goal of the D3 playoffs?  If the goal is to crown a team as the best in D3, then shouldn't the tournament invite those teams most likely to compete for that title?
TLU is to be commended for scheduling UMHB, but that game was their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing in the tournament.  Losing by such a wide margin clearly indicates they are not ready yet.     

There are 4 teams most likely to win the national title. There might be 3 or 4 more teams that if things break exactly right, might get a shot at the title. None of those 8 teams are missing from the tournament. Are there teams missing that could win a few games? Sure. But that's how it's always been. All the teams that got left out have already been proven inferior to someone.

Didn't UWO already miss their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing? NCC and SJF as well. Who are you upset about?

Thanks for your fair reply.
I agree there are likely 8 teams with a real chance of winning, but I also think there are quite a few more that, on any given day (within reason), could rise up and make a real run.  Teams that are missing from the playoffs that I feel could play with any of the big 8 include:  UWO, UWP, NCC, SJF, Concordia-Moorhead for sure and perhaps Bethel, .  All of these teams proved that if "things had broke right", they could have beat Big 8 playoff teams.  TLU simply isn't in that category.  Actually, maybe they are, but the problem is, given their chance to prove it, they indicated that "even if things had broke right", they weren't beating UMHB. 

For what it's worth, I'd list the Big 8 as UWW, UMHB, MT, Wesley, Wartburg, St. John's, Linfield and JCU.  There are others that come close to the Big 8. 

The point is, there were teams left out that clearly showed during the regular season (probably none more than UWO) that they not only belonged in the playoffs, but could compete with the best of the best.       

badgerwarhawk

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?


Maybe the ASC has been a two bid conference in the past but TLU beating every other ASC member and losing to UMHB by 56 points isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the league receiving two bids.  ???
"Just think twice is my only advice."

jknezek

"UWO, UWP, NCC, SJF, Concordia-Moorhead for sure and perhaps Bethel"

I get your point, I just disagree. I'm fine with the playoffs so long as no team that has a legitimate shot to win the national title is missing. While that can be arbitrary, I don't think any of the teams above were a threat to win the title. UWO comes closest, but the other teams all lost twice. Granted they lost to good teams, but you have to beat good teams to win the national title, and they all failed, TWICE. Are they better than teams in the playoffs? Absolutely, but they weren't a credible threat to win the biggest games when they already lost big games, twice.

That leaves UWO. Which becomes an argument about schedule. Why did UWO choose to schedule 3 non D3 schools? Do we want to encourage this? Why did TLU schedule UMHB? Do we want to encourage that? The answer to me is pretty clear. If you want to make the D3 playoffs as a second chance school, you need all the possible D3 data you can provide. UWO didn't do that. We do want to encourage TLU to schedule UMHB because it is D3 and, to be honest, it might help UWO schedule D3 in the future.

Is TLU better than UWO? Who knows. No comparable data exists. I'd assume UWO is better, but UWO did nothing to help their cause. TLU did everything they could, winning 9 D3 games against an ASC schedule and volunteered to play one of the best teams in D3. That is the kind of thing I'd rather applaud.

The argument that UWO is better has no facts, only speculation. The argument that TLU blew it would make it unreasonably more difficult for the Power 4 teams to schedule OOC games. The NCAA, in my mind, chose correctly. It doesn't harm the tournament outcome to me since I highly doubt either team could win it all.

jknezek

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on November 18, 2014, 01:28:58 PM

Maybe the ASC has been a two bid conference in the past but TLU beating every other ASC member and losing to UMHB by 56 points isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the league receiving two bids.  ???

No, it doesn't. You are right. But the point is that TLU didn't play a terrible schedule. And while TLU got monkey stomped, other ASC teams were, somewhat, competitive with UMHB. Hardin-Simmons and Louisiana College both were respectable against UMHB, and both lost to TLU. Redlands went 6-1 in the SCIAC, almost nipped Chapman, but were destroyed by UMHB and Linfield, does that mean the SCIAC champ isn't a good team? Chapman is ranked pretty high.

Comparative data only gets you so far. TLU played a legitimate D3 schedule and their only loss was to an elite in a non-conf game. Granted it was a really, really bad loss, but you don't want to start telling teams not to schedule an elite, which is essentially what excluding TLU from the tournament would do.

D3MAFAN

Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 01:02:30 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 12:08:29 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 18, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Seriously, regarding the selection process, I feel like the lone wolf when it comes to my incredible frustration that a team that lost 72-16 to a D3 conference opponent was given a playoff bid.
Is there anyone out there that shares my pain (other than the players and especially the seniors of all the more worthy teams that didn't get the bid)?

UMHB is not a conference opponent for TLU. TLU is in the SCAC, UMHB is in the ASC. TLU volunteered to play UMHB and got their rears handed to them. They also played every team in the ASC, and defeated them all. So they would have finished second in the ASC were they in that conference. The ASC has been a multi-bid conference in the past.

Leaving TLU out wouldn't have bothered me, but it would have made it pointless to schedule UMHB or any of the big teams going forward. Why do that if you can get in at 9-1 or 10-0 playing other competition?

Sorry, I should have left it at "D3" opponent, as that is really my point.
There are arguments on both sides of the scheduling tough opponents idea.  Specific to this issue I think is the question:  What is the goal of the D3 playoffs?  If the goal is to crown a team as the best in D3, then shouldn't the tournament invite those teams most likely to compete for that title?
TLU is to be commended for scheduling UMHB, but that game was their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing in the tournament.  Losing by such a wide margin clearly indicates they are not ready yet.     

There are 4 teams most likely to win the national title. There might be 3 or 4 more teams that if things break exactly right, might get a shot at the title. None of those 8 teams are missing from the tournament. Are there teams missing that could win a few games? Sure. But that's how it's always been. All the teams that got left out have already been proven inferior to someone.

Didn't UWO already miss their opportunity to prove they are worthy of competing? NCC and SJF as well. Who are you upset about?

Thanks for your fair reply.
I agree there are likely 8 teams with a real chance of winning, but I also think there are quite a few more that, on any given day (within reason), could rise up and make a real run.  Teams that are missing from the playoffs that I feel could play with any of the big 8 include:  UWO, UWP, NCC, SJF, Concordia-Moorhead for sure and perhaps Bethel, .  All of these teams proved that if "things had broke right", they could have beat Big 8 playoff teams.  TLU simply isn't in that category.  Actually, maybe they are, but the problem is, given their chance to prove it, they indicated that "even if things had broke right", they weren't beating UMHB. 

For what it's worth, I'd list the Big 8 as UWW, UMHB, MT, Wesley, Wartburg, St. John's, Linfield and JCU.  There are others that come close to the Big 8. 

The point is, there were teams left out that clearly showed during the regular season (probably none more than UWO) that they not only belonged in the playoffs, but could compete with the best of the best.       

I think everyone has valid points and I agree that on any given day a team can be beaten regardless. Two teams on your list were beaten by teams not included on your list (thus the point that there are more teams that can possibly make a run a beat the others). The same JCU team that lost to MT,  was nearly defeated earlier in the season by team that most (if not all) would say is not a playoff team, which again proves that anyone can be beaten, especially since so many factors go into the game such as weather, injury (sickness), game plan, etc...

Pat Coleman

Quote from: jknezek on November 18, 2014, 01:35:05 PM
Comparative data only gets you so far. TLU played a legitimate D3 schedule and their only loss was to an elite in a non-conf game. Granted it was a really, really bad loss, but you don't want to start telling teams not to schedule an elite, which is essentially what excluding TLU from the tournament would do.

I agree with this. Nobody wants to send that message.

Last year TLU played everyone BUT Mary Hardin-Baylor from its former conference and the committee invited them to stay home in Week 12 as a result. This year they got UMHB back on the schedule. They're doing the right thing.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

02 Warhawk

#36595
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

D3MAFAN

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 18, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

I think wins and losses has to come into play into the criteria.

02 Warhawk

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on November 18, 2014, 02:40:11 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 18, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

I think wins and losses has to come into play into the criteria.

Yes, that obviously won out.

jknezek

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 18, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

UWO only had 6 wins. TLU had 9. Winning percentage in D3 is primary criteria as well. We can all pick and choose, but really there is a valid case to be made for both teams.

All that being said, TLU went in as a B. Their fate was decided before the C teams. I know that's a technicality when comparing who SHOULD have gotten in, but it's important to the process. UWO, if they made the table, would be making a case against either Centre or Muhlenberg from the South.

wally_wabash

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 18, 2014, 02:30:54 PM
Heard a line in the Podcast that said "It's not so much who you lost to, but who you beat".

If that's the case, then you can make the argument: UWO>TLU

UWO has quality wins at UWP and at UWSP. Also, both UWO and TLU played D3 powers.....one was embarrassed, while the other held their ground.

Here's my thing with TLU.  I would be much more comfortable with TLU playing in the tournament if they got to play literally anybody other than UMHB.  We know how that turns out.  With that said, per the criteria, TLU earned a spot in the field.  That much really can't be argued with.  I'd been projecting TLU in for the last month of the season.

As far as TLU vs. UWO- that conversation could never ever happen.  We know that TLU was in the field via Pool B, which means TLU and UWO were never talked about and compared to one another.  Everything you say there is valid re: UWO and TLU, but those profiles were never in play at the same time on Saturday night/Sunday. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire